GGAL Grupo Financiero Galicia

[magoo]

buen dia, si no les gusta leer le digo a la fed que resuma.veo una subida del petroleo luego del vencimiento de contratos futuros.

[Hub]

Qué barbaro como se pincha la volatilidad luego del OPEX, ¿seguro HUB que no se justifica lanzar Febrero?.

la 19 está muy linda, no te puedo decir que no
lo mio es una vision persona, este vencimiento no lo veo tan claro como lo fue diciembre, que se yo, por ahi en enero se aclare algo y tome alguna decisión
cubierto te da una tasa de 15% en 2 meses en la 19, 90% anual, y te cubre hasta $16, le ganas a la inflación me parece

Hub como la ves ,como sigue para arriba o para abajo

se va para el costado

Igual me parece que tendrías que esperar a que suba la volatilidad para lanzar, no ?

en cuanto están las VIs?

[mkb]

Dice que GGAL puede o

O lateralizar

[EstebanInversiones]

Igual me parece que tendrías que esperar a que suba la volatilidad para lanzar, no ?

Qué barbaro como se pincha la volatilidad luego del OPEX, ¿seguro HUB que no se justifica lanzar Febrero?.

[martinrame]

Qué barbaro como se pincha la volatilidad luego del OPEX, ¿seguro HUB que no se justifica lanzar Febrero?.

[ROP]

Ahora:


Un marcapasos urgente para la descontrolada arritmia que sufre el precio del petróleo. ¿Cuál es la causa? ¿Un virus, una obstrucción, una malformación? Nadie lo sabe con certeza. Nadie del mundo que mira pantallas, arriesga capital propio y ajeno, o escribe en portales especializados.

La simple deducción de que EEUU, el consumidor del tercio del total de energía producida en el mundo, pregona y amenaza con el autoabastecimiento no convence. Porque para ese autoabastecimiento se necesita más tecnología, y por ende, mayores costos. Casi el doble de lo que ahora cotiza el crudo.

¿Y entonces por qué baja?

El ministro saudita del Petróleo, Ali al-Nuaimi, afirmó recientemente que es "imposible" para su país, el principal productor de la OPEP, reducir su producción de crudo, y consideró que "las fluctuaciones de las cotizaciones en los mercados de materias primas, entre ellas el petróleo son normales". ¿¿¿Normales???. Bajó de 106.8 dólares registrado el 20 de junio pasado a 54.11 registrado ayer. El 50%. ¿Semejante baja sólo para desalentar el uso de otras tecnologías?. ¿Y por qué imposible cerrar un poco la canilla?.

Miguel Galuccio, CEO de YPF, admitió que el precio competitivo del barril de petróleo para YPF es de u$s 80. Crudo obtenido de manera convencional.

¿Y entonces por qué baja?

Barack seguramente lo sabe. Y parece no preocuparle, porque el SPY superó la resistencia de 2040 y enfila hacia máximos históricos en 2085. El empleo aumenta. Y vamos a tener que aumentar las tasas para regular el consumo y la inflación. ¿Cuál es el problema que las empresas productoras de crudo de segundo orden den pérdidas? Que emitan “bonos basura” (High Yield) a 50 años.

¿Estamos viendo un cambio de paradigma en la lucha de poder mundial? ¿Los tanques subiendo y bajando dunas en la guerra del Golfo, o invadir países para derrocar dictadores y controlar pozos, o el bombardeo “de precisión”, sin bajas de civiles, son ya historias lejanas?

Si, lo estamos viendo. La “guerra económica”, sin bajas propias ni de civiles inocentes, silenciosa y tan o más efectiva, es lo que estamos viendo.

¿Y qué es “lo seguro” ahora en cuanto al precio del crudo?. Que debajo de 45 nadie lo ve. Y que la recuperación desde acá va a ser lenta. El paciente va a necesitar rehabilitación.
El miércoles, las 40 empresas energéticas más importantes del S&P 500, subieron un promedio del 10%, como señal de que el valor alcanzado en el crudo era un piso.

Pero el paciente no se estabiliza. Los familiares se desesperan. Los cardiólogos preocupados no se ponen de acuerdo. No saben qué decir. Hay “Ateneo Médico”. Por las dudas, le inyectan anticoagulantes.
Está en manos de Dios.

[martinrame]

yo se que es largo pero no me maten...
For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in October suggests that economic activity is expanding at a moderate pace. Labor market conditions improved further, with solid job gains and a lower unemployment rate. On balance, a range of labor market indicators suggests that underutilization of labor resources continues to diminish. Household spending is rising moderately and business fixed investment is advancing, while the recovery in the housing sector remains slow. Inflation has continued to run below the Committee's longer-run objective, partly reflecting declines in energy prices. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have declined somewhat further; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee expects that, with appropriate policy accommodation, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, with labor market indicators moving toward levels the Committee judges consistent with its dual mandate. The Committee sees the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market as nearly balanced. The Committee expects inflation to rise gradually toward 2 percent as the labor market improves further and the transitory effects of lower energy prices and other factors dissipate. The Committee continues to monitor inflation developments closely.

To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain this target range, the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. Based on its current assessment, the Committee judges that it can be patient in beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy. The Committee sees this guidance as consistent with its previous statement that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time following the end of its asset purchase program in October, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run goal, and provided that longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored. However, if incoming information indicates faster progress toward the Committee's employment and inflation objectives than the Committee now expects, then increases in the target range for the federal funds rate are likely to occur sooner than currently anticipated. Conversely, if progress proves slower than expected, then increases in the target range are likely to occur later than currently anticipated.

The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. This policy, by keeping the Committee's holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial conditions.

When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent. The Committee currently anticipates that, even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic conditions may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels the Committee views as normal in the longer run.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Stanley Fischer; Loretta J. Mester; Jerome H. Powell; and Daniel K. Tarullo.

Voting against the action were Richard W. Fisher, who believed that, while the Committee should be patient in beginning to normalize monetary policy, improvement in the U.S. economic performance since October has moved forward, further than the majority of the Committee envisions, the date when it will likely be appropriate to increase the federal funds rate; Narayana Kocherlakota, who believed that the Committee's decision, in the context of ongoing low inflation and falling market-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations, created undue downside risk to the credibility of the 2 percent inflation target; and Charles I. Plosser, who believed that the statement should not stress the importance of the passage of time as a key element of its forward guidance and, given the improvement in economic conditions, should not emphasize the consistency of the current forward guidance with previous statements.

Nadie lee tanto, Si lo leíste, podés resumir?

gracias

Dice que GGAL puede o

[Magus]

yo se que es largo pero no me maten...
For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in October suggests that economic activity is expanding at a moderate pace. Labor market conditions improved further, with solid job gains and a lower unemployment rate. On balance, a range of labor market indicators suggests that underutilization of labor resources continues to diminish. Household spending is rising moderately and business fixed investment is advancing, while the recovery in the housing sector remains slow. Inflation has continued to run below the Committee's longer-run objective, partly reflecting declines in energy prices. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have declined somewhat further; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee expects that, with appropriate policy accommodation, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, with labor market indicators moving toward levels the Committee judges consistent with its dual mandate. The Committee sees the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market as nearly balanced. The Committee expects inflation to rise gradually toward 2 percent as the labor market improves further and the transitory effects of lower energy prices and other factors dissipate. The Committee continues to monitor inflation developments closely.

To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain this target range, the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. Based on its current assessment, the Committee judges that it can be patient in beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy. The Committee sees this guidance as consistent with its previous statement that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time following the end of its asset purchase program in October, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run goal, and provided that longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored. However, if incoming information indicates faster progress toward the Committee's employment and inflation objectives than the Committee now expects, then increases in the target range for the federal funds rate are likely to occur sooner than currently anticipated. Conversely, if progress proves slower than expected, then increases in the target range are likely to occur later than currently anticipated.

The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. This policy, by keeping the Committee's holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial conditions.

When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent. The Committee currently anticipates that, even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic conditions may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels the Committee views as normal in the longer run.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Stanley Fischer; Loretta J. Mester; Jerome H. Powell; and Daniel K. Tarullo.

Voting against the action were Richard W. Fisher, who believed that, while the Committee should be patient in beginning to normalize monetary policy, improvement in the U.S. economic performance since October has moved forward, further than the majority of the Committee envisions, the date when it will likely be appropriate to increase the federal funds rate; Narayana Kocherlakota, who believed that the Committee's decision, in the context of ongoing low inflation and falling market-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations, created undue downside risk to the credibility of the 2 percent inflation target; and Charles I. Plosser, who believed that the statement should not stress the importance of the passage of time as a key element of its forward guidance and, given the improvement in economic conditions, should not emphasize the consistency of the current forward guidance with previous statements.

Nadie lee tanto, Si lo leíste, podés resumir?

gracias

[Magus]

Magus, uso varias, te paso

https://www.tradingview.com/e/
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui
http://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=ggal[/quote]

gracias Conde!

Yo armé una Bear con Galicia y mi visión inicial se cumplió; peeero, cambié sobre la marcha y recompré la base lanzada y salí casi empate. El call no lo vendí y al final llegué tarde, pues tendría que haberlo vendido hoy cuando tocó 17,50; pero para variar, estaba ocupado trabajando. Ergo, me metí el call en el....si, exactamente ahí. jajajaj NO me importa, es parte del aprerndisaje, si me sale bien de entrada, a ver si todavía me la creo y después la embarro peor. Ahora fueron solo 5 lotecitos.

De paso si no es un abuso, mucho te agradecería si autorizas al administrador a que me de tu mail.
saludos

[palines25]

Hub como la ves ,como sigue para arriba o para abajo

[ElGranDiego]

2,20% arriba el adr acá nada

[ElGranDiego]

Ahora en NYSE sube, que con_chuda

[Harry26]

me han ejercido bases que vendí a 1,5 y el día del vencimiento valían 20 centavos
hay cada aparato

capaz te las ejercieron de bronca

[Hub]

que hacen reventando en 16,8?
no habrán ejercido sin la plata no?

[El Conde]

Y encima CCL de 11,35